Is America in a permanent decline?

[Sierra Lobo]

welfare

Interesting. Y'know, we've had Medicare for almost sixty years now, and our modern welfare system for fourty, and we haven't had much trouble at all. In fact, we ran massive budget surpluses for a large part of the 90's and 00's, with little trouble at all. Heck, even the Economist praised our banking system. So why are we doomed, exactly?

MORE WELFARE

[Sremski okrug]

Explain how Canada is doomed?

welfare

That does not explain anything, infact the Canadian banking system fared well during the economic crisis and it's economy was only effected because it's large trade percentage with the United States, hopefully Canada will trade more with countries that have good financial regulation in placed (based on Canada's system) like the European Union.

I heard that income inequality in the United States is worse then Venezuela, it's pretty funny :3

[Avenio]

Interesting. Y'know, we've had Medicare for almost sixty years now, and our modern welfare system for fourty, and we haven't had much trouble at all. In fact, we ran massive budget surpluses for a large part of the 90's and 00's, with little trouble at all. Heck, even the Economist praised our banking system. So why are we doomed, exactly?

MORE WELFARE

...

Oook then. We have a Tory government in power right now, its safe to say that the amounts of money going towards social programmes or Medicare aren't going to increase any time soon. You're going to have to be a little bit more descriptive than that.

[Lackadaisical2]

welfare

That does not explain anything, infact the Canadian banking system fared well during the economic crisis and it's economy was only effected because it's large trade percentage with the United States, hopefully Canada will trade more with countries that have good financial regulation in placed (based on Canada's system) like the European Union.

I heard that income inequality in the United States is worse then Venezuela, it's pretty funny :3

er... considering that Venezuela is run by a socialist, one would expect that.

[The House of Brent]

In 1802, Humphry Davy had what was then the most powerful electrical battery in the world at the Royal Institution of Great Britain. In that year, he created the first incandescent light by passing the current through a thin strip of platinum.

Sir Joseph Wilson Swan KBE (31 October 1828 – 27 May 1914) was a British physicist and chemist, most famous for the invention of the incandescent light bulb for which he received the first patent in 1878. His house (in Newcastle Upon Tyne, England) was the first in the world to be lit by a lightbulb.

Alexander Stepanovich Popov - Radio

In 1884 Paul Gottlieb Nipkow, a 23-year old university student in Germany, patented the first electromechanical television system.

Edison made the first practical, useful incandescent lamp. Nipkow's television was also impractical. I didn't say the U.S. invented these things, I said we brought them to the world. No new technology is created by just one person - it is ALL building on the work of those who have gone before. However it WAS the U.S. that perfected these technologies into mass producable, practical products. The U.S. did not invent the car, but it WAS an American that made the system which allowed the car to be available to the masses.

Besides, inventions 130 yrs ago are totally besides the point to the original question of whether or not the U.S. is in a permanent decline.

[North Suran]

I totally agree. The U.S. gave the world the light bulb, radio, TV, motion pictures, rock and roll, jazz, computer networking, and, most importantly, Baywatch.

No, better than that a successful experiment in the idea of a liberty driven constitution.

Considering the Founding Fathers have cited the United Seven Netherlands as an influence, I don't see how this is an achievement of the United States.

[The House of Brent]

hopefully Canada will trade more with countries that have good financial regulation in placed (based on Canada's system) like the European Union.

The EU is your idea of a good banking system? The EU has remarkably little transparency and the stress tests they recently did on their banks were a joke. The Europeans blame the U.S. for the recent recession because of our mortgage crisis, but when the U.S. invented the financial instruments that LEAD to that crisis the Euros bought them up like crazy in order to make money off of them.

It's not even the U.S. banking system so much that's the problem, it's the fact that Wall Street is very short term and, frankly, corrupt. Yet another reason that I asked - is the U.S. in permanent decline?

[Lacadaemon]

Yah, it is on a decline. But so was the British Empire post the Napoleonic wars. That doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of time to still fuck a whole bunch of parvenu shite up, and nor does that mean that it still won't be an awesome place to live.

Fact is, the whole world won't ever be 'American'. And the soft power that the US had post WWII will decline. But it doesn't mean that in any of our lifetimes, or for the foreseeable future, that anyone else can stop us being 'American' either. So it's really a non issue.

And fuck man, remember the horror when Germany went insane (twice!). Really just don't push that button.

[Lackadaisical2]

And fuck man, remember the horror when Germany went insane (twice!). Really just don't push that button.

That'd be amusing, in a horrible sort of way...

[Federalist Territories]

welfare

Interesting. Y'know, we've had Medicare for almost sixty years now, and our modern welfare system for fourty, and we haven't had much trouble at all. In fact, we ran massive budget surpluses for a large part of the 90's and 00's, with little trouble at all. Heck, even the Economist praised our banking system. So why are we doomed, exactly?

Canada is doomed from stagnation, nothing good will come of the country. The economy is stagnant, wont go bad, but will never really boom. A budget surplus of what? Canada has a population of 34 million people, America 310 million. Welfare and universal might work for you, you have a tenth of our population and i emphasize might. Canada has little if no military presence in the world, social influence is minimum other then the potheads in the states wanting to be like Canadian, i guess you can call that a social breakthrough. Canada has stagnant economy, no military presence, little social influence, Canada is like the random guy at a party that stands in the corner and people realize he's there but they either dont care or are creeped out by him. That's Canada.

[Novograd IV]

Biased OP is biased.

Write for The Sun perhaps?

[The House of Brent]

Considering the Founding Fathers have cited the United Seven Netherlands as an influence, I don't see how this is an achievement of the United States.

Here's how -

Benjamin Franklin cited the Iroquois League as his example of why the US should set up a democratic union. The idea of modern democracy (I'm not talking ancient Greece here) came from the example of the Native Americans. After encountering the Indians, Europeans were amazed that people could live in freedom under a leader who rules solely by the consent of the people (his tribe). It totally violated rule by divine right, the coercive nature of western governments (Indians had no police or jails), and every other theory of government that monarchical Europe knew. Even John Locke got his theories from the Indian example. (Caucasians just like to THINK that after centuries of rule by divine right they all of a sudden came up with the idea of democracy and popular sovereignty because they were JUST THAT SMART! Another great example of the U.S. ignoring its own history, even the good parts.)

White Euro colonials get the credit, but the Indians were doing it for centuries before whitey even heard of the Americas. Ultimately however, the U.S. gets the credit for adopting the system, setting an example (followed by countries like Haiti, France, and others), and by actively exporting democracy in some cases (the U.S. demanded the removal of the German Kaiser after WW I).

[Offenheim]

I'd say America is waning, but I don't think it's a horrific turn of events. For most of our history, America has not been the world superpower. We only achieved superpower status in 1941, and great power status in 1918. Prior to that America wasn't really a major player on the world political stage. Oh sure, we beat up the Spanish and took some of their colonies, but the Spanish were a sixth-rate empire at that point.

Furthermore, other countries had declines where their empires were largely removed. The British Empire couldn't afford theirs, so it was given a quick independence (with disastrous results). The Spanish Empire disintegrated into revolutions in the early 19th century. The Portuguese also had to quickly lose their empire. The Soviet Union collapsed into different republics.

If America declines what's the worse that happens? We return to our position in the world prior to the Spanish-American War. All told, it's not a bad place to be. We have to react to other countries, but we'll still have some agency. So we don't call the shots for the world anymore. Great! Not all Americans are jingoistic enough to think that democracy can be exported with a gun. Some of us prefer the idea of America as a city on a hill. Our periods of greatest immigration were when America was not a world power, but an emerging country.

Also we're not in a permanent decline. It's unclear what we're in anyways, but nothing is assured. We're not guaranteed to constantly decline.

Finally, to the poster who discussed economic development in 3 waves: agricultural, manufacturing, and post-industrial; I say this: that's a stupid way to go.

No nation has remained strong if it doesn't have an industrial base. America has a strong agricultural base, and its industrial power is weakening. It's a bad sign for America, just as it would be for any country, if it cannot produce its own goods. That was one of the reasons for revolution against Britain, the forced importation of finished goods from Britain. Having a strong economy requires agriculture and industry. Thinking that you can just switch to a "thought economy" is wishful thinking, and it's going to lead to a collapsed economy. Even knowledge-based jobs can be outsourced. All types of jobs need to be available in the US, not just the high-prestige "thinking" jobs. We need to make, and sell, our own stuff.

[North Suran]

Considering the Founding Fathers have cited the United Seven Netherlands as an influence, I don't see how this is an achievement of the United States.

Here's how -

Benjamin Franklin cited the Iroquois League as his example of why the US should set up a democratic union.

The Iroquois League was not a representative democracy - nevermind one with a "liberty driven constitution". It was a hunter-gatherer society with an anarcho-syndicalist system of local governance. It is as far removed from modern representative democracy as you can get. Even the Classical Greek model of a direct democracy is closer to what we have now.

Ultimately however, the U.S. gets the credit for adopting the system,

That's like saying, "I didn't invent the car, but because I drive a car, this means I can claim credit for the invention of the car."

setting an example (followed by countries like Haiti, France, and others),

French democracy has its origins in the French Revolution. And we all know what Haiti is like now.

and by actively exporting democracy in some cases (the U.S. demanded the removal of the German Kaiser after WW I).

Germany was a democracy before WWI. It had a democratically-elected parliament. The Kaiser just had greater powers than in the British model.

[SaintB]

The US is on a slump but even Rocky Marcione had his bad days. In a few years we will no longer be run by the privileged children of the 60's and 70's and a more pragmatic/realistic/modern/savvy generation will take over and the US will probably go back to being at or near the top in everything.

[Offenheim]

The US is on a slump but even Rocky Marcione had his bad days. In a few years we will no longer be run by the privileged children of the 60's and 70's and a more pragmatic/realistic/modern/savvy generation will take over and the US will probably go back to being at or near the top in everything.

Yeah! We'll be run by the overprivileged children of the 80s and 90s!

[SaintB]

The US is on a slump but even Rocky Marcione had his bad days. In a few years we will no longer be run by the privileged children of the 60's and 70's and a more pragmatic/realistic/modern/savvy generation will take over and the US will probably go back to being at or near the top in everything.

Yeah! We'll be run by the overprivileged children of the 80s and 90s!

Not quite, the over-privileged in the 80's and 90's found themselves much less privileged in the 00's, the people of privilege before that generation didn't notice as much.

[Offenheim]

Yeah! We'll be run by the overprivileged children of the 80s and 90s!

Not quite, the over-privileged in the 80's and 90's found themselves much less privileged in the 00's, the people of privilege before that generation didn't notice as much.

You completely lost me. Are you talking about the 5% of people who control 84% of the wealth in this country?

[SaintB]

Not quite, the over-privileged in the 80's and 90's found themselves much less privileged in the 00's, the people of privilege before that generation didn't notice as much.

You completely lost me. Are you talking about the 5% of people who control 84% of the wealth in this country?

Aren't they also the ones who are the majority in the government?

[The House of Brent]

The Iroquois League was not a representative democracy - nevermind one with a "liberty driven constitution". It was a hunter-gatherer society with an anarcho-syndicalist system of local governance. It is as far removed from modern representative democracy as you can get. Even the Classical Greek model of a direct democracy is closer to what we have now.

The House of Brent wrote:Ultimately however, the U.S. gets the credit for adopting the system,


That's like saying, "I didn't invent the car, but because I drive a car, this means I can claim credit for the invention of the car."

The House of Brent wrote:setting an example (followed by countries like Haiti, France, and others),


French democracy has its origins in the French Revolution. And we all know what Haiti is like now.

The House of Brent wrote:and by actively exporting democracy in some cases (the U.S. demanded the removal of the German Kaiser after WW I).


Germany was a democracy before WWI. It had a democratically-elected parliament. The Kaiser just had greater powers than in the British model.

lmao. i never said the iroquois had a representative democracy. i said their leader ruled by consent of the ruled, unlike a Euro monarch.
"The House of Brent wrote:Ultimately however, the U.S. gets the credit for adopting the system,That's like saying, "I didn't invent the car, but because I drive a car, this means I can claim credit for the invention of the car." No, it's really NOT like saying that.
"French democracy has its origins in the French Revolution." - Uh huh. Again, suddenly white people just came up with the idea of democracy after CENTURIES of monarchy and divine right huh? And, naturally, since Euros are the source of all human civilization and progress, France NEVER coulda been inspired by the American Revolution could it?
"And we all know what Haiti is like now." - totally irrelevant to the point. It's current situation does not change the fact that Haiti was the first country to follow the American example.
"Germany was a democracy before WWI. It had a democratically-elected parliament." - This isn't totally irrelevant, it's only partially irrelevant. The German Parliament had very little authority because Chancellor Bismark designed it that way. The Kaiser and the Chancellor made up just about all of the real authority in Germany until after WW 1. Other than Napolean, Euros did not overthrow any noble Houses after wars because, unlike Americans, the Euros didn't see lack of representative govt as a cause of conflicts. The fact is that it was still the U.S. that demanded the end of the Kaiser and it was based on ideas of democracy.

[Offenheim]

You completely lost me. Are you talking about the 5% of people who control 84% of the wealth in this country?

Aren't they also the ones who are the majority in the government?

I would suppose so, but I haven't really done economic rankings on each of the members of Congress plus the president and the supreme court justices. It's my understanding that everyone in the Senate is a millionaire, but I have no citations to back that up. I would imagine there's some upper-middle class members of the House.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

At one time the tallest building, the longest bridge, and the largest dam were all American...

Is this the end of American power/greatness or can the U.S. pull itself out of its seeming decline? What do you think?

The "tallest, longest, biggest" are as related to good engineering as they are to good penises - the size of a building doesn't actually tell you what kind of engineering went into it. The reason why historically huge American buildings were so revered is that they were pressing onwards to heights that weren't reached before during a time that they had neither the engineering nor construction knowledge that we do today to design and build a good, safe structure. Engineers of the early 20th century didn't have a stringent set of building codes or AutoCAD or SAP to work with - they had a basic idea of how their structures would work on a small scale, yes, but translating that to a very large scale building toppled many buildings before, or even alongside, them. I understand how awe-inspiring buildings today are, but quite a bit of it can be ascribed to advancements in computer modeling.

As far as America as a good producer of engineers, ompanies around the world use American engineering and architecture services today. For example, the tallest building in the world, the Burj Dubai, was designed by an American company.

I don't mean to do a lot of "YAY GO TEAM AMERICA" dick-waving (Taipei 101 is a really interesting building that required studying tuned mass damper design in structures and wasn't designed by an American company), but it's not like America isn't excellent when it comes to engineering.

/CE Major rant

[Arkinesia]

Relatively speaking, probably. The fact of the matter is that other nations are going to improve themselves at a far faster rate than America can. So relatively speaking they are becoming more powerful and less susceptible to American influence. America cant grow its GDP at 10% a year like a country with a minuscule GDP.

That's a really good answer. I'd like to hang some observation about relative versus absolute wealth off it ... but how to keep it short? Never mind...

Brevity is not one of NSG's strong suits.

Why are you trying to make it one?

[Lackadaisical2]

That's a really good answer. I'd like to hang some observation about relative versus absolute wealth off it ... but how to keep it short? Never mind...

Brevity is not one of NSG's strong suits.

Why are you trying to make it one?

I see you haven't read many of NH's posts

They're quite wonderful in their own way, but have a tendency to ramble on far beyond anything which was meant to be undertaken. I mostly enjoy the stories.

[Arkinesia]

Brevity is not one of NSG's strong suits.

Why are you trying to make it one?

I see you haven't read many of NH's posts

They're quite wonderful in their own way, but have a tendency to ramble on far beyond anything which was meant to be undertaken. I mostly enjoy the stories.

You realize brevity means short, and few posts on here wind up being short, right?